Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by time_stops

  1. time_stops

    CFL Nationals

    Jackson do you have results yet?
  2. Yes, look in the National Service Forum at the differnt case lists and case idea's, or just use the search function.
  3. time_stops

    CFL Nationals

    Anyone know how any kansas teams are doing? Any Kansas teams hit any interesting aff's? etc?
  4. it would be much appriciated
  5. Not on Highbeam or Questia either
  6. Could it be the one that is located under your screen name?
  7. I doubt that is so, i think its more on the level of Foucaults argument is essentially a simulation. I would have to re-read parts of the book to provide more specific levels of analysis. Once i get the book back i can probly post some more specifics. That was just a rough overview of the argument.
  8. I don't claim to know much about Foucault (The only books of his i have read are Discipline and Punish and the History of Sexuality Vol. 1). But i have a lot of Baudrillard and this is where i draw my understanding of how Baudrillard and Foucault don't work together. But there is some great literature out there that works to make connections between Baudrillard and Agamben. Though Baudrillard never outright agree's with anything that Agamben says either. But the greatest argument as to why Baudrillard and Foucault don't work being read side by side is Baudrillards critique of Foucault. In fact the book is rightly titled Forget Foucault. In it he describes how Foucaults discourse of Power is a mirror of that which he describes. He says that they are discourses in power and impose their own narrative. That they are "projecting their own will to truth". I think the key place that people are drawing similarities in the writting of these two authors comes from the fact that Baudrillards approach to the contemporary isn't legitimized without Foucault's description of the modern. But Baudrillard argues that Foucaults theories have become volitized in the world of simulation. On other levels i object to this because i don't think their alternatives are necessarily the same. Baudrillards Fatal Strategies relies on the idea that we demand more than the system is willing to take. This overload of the hyper-real, the mass of images without meaning, the dense lack of imagination and interpretation will in essence demand that there be some meaning. And because the system isn't willing to give this meaning to this mass of inquiry, or this "fatal strategy" it will collapse. Also Radical Thought requires us to give language no meaning, and to distance ourselves from what is "real". This creates confusion of the system and ultimately forces it to collapse. Its grounded in the idea that we must push the system until it falls. Not with direct engagement but by distancing ourseles on the margins.
  9. On face its easy to make the connections that way. But i would recommend reading the details behind the two authors. Especially in The Conspiracy of Art because there is more to the hyper-real than "what the sovereign wants us to see". Because While Bio-Political power is that which is distributed by the Sovereign, the Hyper-real isn't the same. There is more playing into it. Plus, if i remember right the topic of Disciplinary Power was brought up, and Hyper-reality isn't so much a Disciplinary distributation of power over the life and death of the people, but rather a mystification of the atrocities of the sovereign by the state, the media, and the citizens.
  10. Read The Conspiracy of Art Baudrillard explicitly says working within the system won't solve the hyper-real.
  11. Okay, then look at their alternatives. They don't coincide, look at both of their theories, they don't coincide. Im just saying that if you run fuko with baudrillard you better be ready for a debate about how the 2 don't work together. Cause if you have read baudrillard then you would realize that foucault links to his criticism.
  12. Nick, do you have msn? I dislike AIM and don't feel like getting on or adding anyone else to it.
  13. I still think its hilarious that this dude is thinking of reading foucault and baudrillard side by side. This displays a lack of knowledge on both authors.
  14. O sweet god, don't tell me you are going to read foucault with baudrillard in the same case. That really does not work, if a judge knows anything they will just start laughing their asses off.
  15. time_stops


    Use the search function, its there for a reason. If do an "advanced" search and look for the word "irony" in the title of threads it returns 92 hits. This issue has been discussed many a time. And you can look at the the ban masturbation aff that the U of Chicago put up here: http://ceda-ndt.uchicago.edu/hellaprep/banMaff.pdf
  16. Easy, don't lose topicality and don't lose the theory debate...
  17. Its mogwai though, what can you expect. Btw, last night i saw Poison the Well, As Cities Burn, and UnderOath. It was a really good show, its to bad that i got back to my house at 2 in the morning and went to sleep at 3 only to wake up about 2 and a half ours later for school.
  18. Maybe...write blocks as to why t should come before a criticism. Write blocks to certain criticisms. Racism bad isn't a criticism, rather linking racism to something (such as debate) and why it is bad and something needs to be done would be a criticism. Thats where you can answer the argument many different ways (the plethora of strategies that have beaten the project prove). Most of the time you will already have blocks written to answer these criticisms or a particular argument from an author. Regardless there will always be ways to answer the arguments that the aff makes, it just comes down to who can debate it the best. But by someone running a case like this you actually do gain education because my running of this criticism actually forces you to cut cards and make theory blocks against it. There is more education to that then just running a case that you read a couple blocks that someone else on the team cut the evidence for against my case. It is in fact different strategies such as this that bring more education into the round. Plus we give you even more ground than a more topical case ever would. There are all the arguments that you could normally make inside the resolution (i.e. why the resolution is good, why it should be debated, etc) while you can still make arguments against the criticism (why it is flawed, or read turns against it, or theory on why a case must abide by the resolution). There are a lot of arguments that you could run.
  19. Yes, it would seem that a Levinisian framework would be extremely problematic. Its not worth getting into that debate when you can just straight up run deontology for your framework and overt a debate that is bound to get messy and get you fucked.
  20. Damn dude, that pretty much sums it up.
  21. That seems to make more sense. So would you use this in terms of a framework or would this be 2AC arguments to make once they read T on you as a/t?
  22. Haha, whats a rootbear
  23. Naw, this is at the Cotillion in Wichita, Kansas. But i understand your pain for it, most places have these tickets sold out. I was lucky that our ticket outlet still had some of the tickets left.
  • Create New...